Research Article

Plaque Index, Oral Hygiene Habits, and Depressive Symptomatology as Predictors of Clinical Attachment Loss: A Pilot Study

Table 3

Sociodemographic and clinical variables and statistical comparison among the 3 samples.

VariableDPSMHSGPSTotal value
n (%)n (%)n (%)

Sample35 (38.9%)26 (28.9%)29 (32.2%)90 (100%)0.497
χ2 test
SexWomen16 (45.7%)15 (57.7%)15 (51.7%)46 (51.1%)0.650
χ2 test
Men19 (54.3%)11 (42.3%)14 (48.3%)44 (48.9%)

Age35–396 (17.1%)8 (30.8%)5 (17.2%)19 (21.1%)0.186
ANOVA
40–4914 (40%)12 (46.2%)11 (37.9%)37 (41.1%)
50–5912 (34.3%)5 (19.2%)12 (41.4%)29 (32.2%)
60–653 (8.6%)1 (3.8%)1 (3.4%)5 (5.6%)

SchoolingPrimary5 (14.3%)3 (11.5%)2 (6.9%)10 (11.1%)0.257
Kruskal–Wallis test
Secondary9 (25.7%)10 (38.5%)4 (13.8%)23 (25.6%)
High school6 (17.1%)1 (3.8%)7 (24.1%)14 (15.6%)
Vocational7 (20%)5 (19.2%)5 (17.2%)17 (18.9%)
Bachelor7 (20%)5 (19.2%)10 (34.5%)22 (24.4%)
Postgraduate1 (2.9%)2 (7.7%)1 (3.4%)4 (4.4%)

SSESLow2 (5.7%)2 (7.7%)1 (3.4%)5 (5.6%)0.136
Kruskal-Wallis test
Middle-low12 (34.3%)13 (50%)8 (27.6%)33 (36.7%)
Middle-middle21 (60%)11 (42.3%)20 (69%)52 (57.8%)

Civil statusMarried25 (71.4%)13 (50%)23 (79.3%)61 (67.8%)0.180
χ2 test
Single2 (5.7%)6 (23.1%)4 (13.8%)12 (13.3%)
Divorced or separated3 (8.6%)5 (19.2%)1 (3.4%)9 (10%)
Cohabitating3 (8.6%)1 (3.8%)1 (3.4%)5 (5.6%)
Widow2 (5.7%)1 (3.8%)0 (0%)3 (3.3%)

OccupationWhite-collar worker15a (42.9%)13a (50%)17a (58.6%)45 (50%)0.015
χ2 test
Homemaker11a,b (31.4%)12b (46.2%)3a (10.3%)26 (28.9%)
Blue-collar worker8a (22.9%)0b (0%)4a,b (13.8%)12 (13.3%)
Others2a (5.7%)1a (3.8%)5a (17.2%)8 (8.9%)

Classification of CALWithout CAL0 (0%)0 (0.0%)6 (20.7%)6 (6.7%)0.001
Kruskal–Wallis test
Stage I0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (3.4%)1 (1.1%)
Stage II17 (48.6%)24 (92.3%)15 (51.7%)56 (62.2%)
Stage III18 (51.4%)2 (7.7%)7 (24.1%)27 (30%)

Classification of plaque indexLow0a (0%)0a (0%)10b (34.5%)10 (11.1%)<0.001
χ2 test
High35a (100%)26a (100%)19b (65.5%)80 (88.9%)

Level of depressive symptomatologyMinimal35 (100%)0 (0%)29 (100%)64 (71.1%)<0.001
Kruskal–Wallis test
Mild0 (0%)8 (30.8%)0 (0%)8 (8.9%)
Moderate0 (0%)7 (26.9%)0 (0%)7 (7.8%)
Severe0 (0%)11 (42.3%)0 (0%)11 (12.2%)

Classification of oral hygiene habitsBad13 (37.1%)10 (38.5%)7 (24.1%)30 33.3%0.107
Kruskal–Wallis test
Regular20 (57.1%)15 (57.7%)16 (55.2%)51 (56.7%)
Good2 (5.7%)1 (3.8%)6 (20.7%)9 (10%)

Note. Samples: DPS = sample of dental patients with periodontitis, MHS = sample of mental health patients with depressive symptomatology, and GPS = general population sample. Variables: age = the 4 age ranges shown in the table are used for descriptive purposes, since the mean comparisons are made with the quantitative variable “years of age” using the one-way between-group analysis of variance (ANOVA); SSES = subjective socioeconomic status; occupation = white-collar worker (clerk, receptionist, telephone operator, salesperson, and supervisor), homemaker (housewife and househusband), and blue-collar worker including both unskilled manual worker (cleaning worker, waiter, stevedore, assembly line worker, keeper, and security guard) and low-skilled technician (mason, painter, plumber, electrician, carpenter, glazier, hauler, heavy equipment operator, and clinical assistant), and others (self-employed worker, unemployed, and retired); classification of CAL = classification of clinical attachment loss (without CAL = 0 mm, stage I = 1 to 2 mm, stage II = 3 to 4 mm, and stage III = 5 mm or more); classification of plaque index = classification of the Turesky–Gilmore–Glickman plaque index (low: 0 to 1 and high: 2 to 5); level of depressive symptomatology (minimal = BDI-II total score from 0 to 13, mild 14 to 19, moderate from 20 to 28, and severe from 29 to 63); and classification of oral hygiene habits (bad = OHHS total score from 0 to 0.999, regular from 1 to 2,124, and good from 2,125 to 4). Statistics: n = absolute frequency, value = probability value for a 2-tailed test, and a, b = each subscript letter denotes a subset of categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level applying Bonferroni’s correction.